( – promoted by lowkell)

by Paul Goldman

Could an obscure provision in Article IV, Section 11 of the Virginia constitution block the now-infamous redistricting power grab by 20 GOP Senators this past MLK Day? Right now, the top leaders of the GOP are operating under the assumption that the now infamous redistricting power-grab lead by Senator John Watkins only needed 20 votes under the Virginia constitution. But could a clause buried deep in the long and convoluted Section 11 require 21 votes?

If so, the bill was DOA upon arrival in the House of Delegates. Based on the news reports this morning, Republican House Speaker Bill Howell and Republican Governor Bob McDonnell have not ruled out rubber stamping this secretly-plotted GOP power grab, unprecedented in Virginia history. As the Richmond Times Dispatch writes today, the GOP Senators took blood oaths of silence, having crafted a secret plan likely to elect 28 GOP Senators in 2015 based on historic voting patterns. That’s a gain of 8.

Contrary to rock band AC/DC, it wasn’t a dirty deed done dirt cheap. On MLK day, Democratic Senator Henry Marsh was absent. The GOP didn’t make their move at first, lulling the remaining 19 Democratic Senators into being present for the morning quorum call. Once a quorum was recorded, the 20 GOP senators controlled the agenda: it is not possible to unring the quorum bell. Sticking together, the GOP Senators, led by the Atomic Senator, the top-uranium miner Mr. Watkins, passed the most radioactive 200-proof bottle of political whiskey in the state’s modern history.

But did Watkins and posse run afoul of the Virginia constitution? Section 11 reads as follows: “No bill which creates or establishes a new office, or which creates, continues, or revives a debt or charge, or which makes, continues, or revives any appropriation of public or trust money or property, or which releases, discharges, or commutes any claim or demand of the Commonwealth, or which imposes, continues, or revives a tax, shall be passed except by the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members elected to each house, the name of each member voting and how he voted to be recorded in the journal.”

What does the constitution mean by “creates or establishes a new office?” If this rarely cited provision applies to a redistricting bill, then the 20-19 party line sneak attack by the GOP failed to receive the necessary constitutional majority.

In another section of the constitution discussing redistricting, the document refers to members of the General Assembly Senate serving for a “term of office” in Article II, Section 6.  

As a matter of constitutional law, the State Senate isn’t required to have 40 different districts. Article IV, Section 2 says the body can have no more than 40 but it could choose to reduce the number to no fewer than 33 in any redistricting bill.

Let’s  assume the Senate were to pass a redistricting plan with only 33 Senators. Every Virginian would agree such a bill eliminated 7 “offices” as the term is used in the constitution. This is plain commonsense.

Unlike the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General, who represent the whole state of Virginia, the position of State Senator is created to represent a specific and defined slice of the body politic. In order to take his or her elected office in the State Senate, he or she must live within the specific geographical boundaries defining said office in state law. The office of State Senator is thus created for the sole purpose of representing those residing in the defined territorial boundaries. Every Virginian has the same Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General whether living in Accomack or Alexandria, Winchester or Wise County. But Virginians living in those four areas all have different State Senators.

Every redistricting, as a matter of state constitutional law, starts from scratch, with no legal attachment to the current apportionment law.

So we ask again: In terms of the Virginia constitution, what is the legal relationship as regards the  creation of new Senate seats in a redistricting and the Article IV, Section 11 requirement of a 21-vote constitutional majority, not merely a legislative majority?

If Virginia keeps growing, eventually we will get a 12th member of our House of Representatives delegation. Would this be the creation of a “new office?” Every Virginian applying commonsense would say “sure.” This is true even though the “office” itself – in terms of title and general function – already exists, indeed has existed since George Washington took the oath of office.

Indeed, Senators, on their first day in office, have to take the “oath of office.” This is true even if they have been re-elected. Why? Because any political “office” is only good for a term of office. The same for the Governor, LG and AG. But those offices are created by the constitution, not an act of the General Assembly.

By logical deduction therefore, we have shown that the creation of a 12th member of Congress (which technically might be considered created by an act of Congress I suppose), or the elimination of 7 members of the State Senate, would be accepted as the creation of an office in the former example, or the eliminating of offices in the later example. In terms of commonsense, it doesn’t matter that a member of Congress or the State Senate previously existed in terms of title or position.

So what then of the situation where a redistricting bill keeps the number of Senators the same?

Logical speaking, it is no different than the previous two examples since the only difference is how the pie is divided: the basic underlying act, the creation of a certain number of offices to represent the people of Virginia, is the same save the numerical result.

So let’s get to where the rubber meets the road. Given the options available to the General Assembly in passing a State Senate redistricting bill – namely the choice of creating between 33-40 offices without any required connection to those currently in existence – didn’t the Watkins led GOP power grab require 21 votes, not 20?

Indeed there is a strong constitutional policy supporting this commonsense legal analysis. The Virginia constitution, as all state constitutions, only require a constitutional majority in a limited number of cases. Why? The theory is to prevent the passage of certain legislation when a quorum isn’t present on the floor of the body, and also to prevent the LG, technically not a member of the body, to break a 20-20 tie on certain measures allowing a party without a majority to dominate the body.

Or put another way: The Virginia constitution is setup to prevent the very situation at issue here, where a party who failed to elect a constitutional majority can maneuver in secret and on a straight party vote create offices of profit and privilege for itself under the guise of the public interest.

Could 20 GOP Senators on their own eliminate a judge position, and then create a new one – keeping the number the same – for a fellow Republican? No. Could they do away with a position in the Governor’s cabinet, and then create a new Secretary for a fellow Republican, again keeping the number the same on the grounds said cabinet positions already exist? No.

As a matter of constitutional law, expressed plainly in Article II, Section 6, the GOP power grab, if it were to be enacted, would immediately create 40 new Senate offices, all vacant for the time being. Any elected office, by definition, is created to represent a particular slice of the electorate. By law, every Virginian qualified to vote under the constitution has a legal right to vote for anyone running for Governor, LG or AG. But he or she can only vote for certain candidates for State Senate, not anyone running for the position. The office of State Senator, therefore, is derivative, as in derived from the specific powers of roughly 2.5% of the people empowered by law to choose the holder of that office. The other 97.5% have no say. Moreover, in 2015, if the GOP power grab works, those 2.5% or a smaller or larger part thereof, may or may not be allowed to vote for the same person representing them in the office of State Senate created for that very purpose. Unlike a statewide office, it all depends on an act of the General Assembly.

The “office” of State Senator is defined by the specific geography created by the operative redistricting law. In 2015, to the extent that changes district line, it legally creates new “offices” to be filled by a new equation of voters.

The constitutional bottom line: every redistricting bill is based on a decision by the GA to create somewhere between 33-40 State Senators. The choice is theirs. Consistent with state and federal law, statutory and constitutional, they can choose to carve up the state as they see fit. They may choose to keep the same 40 Senators. But as a matter of constitutional law, they have created new “offices” should the district lines change in any material way at least.

Given the fact the redistricting bill is fundamental to creating the very body that the constitution says will sometimes require a constitutional majority to do the people’s business, it makes absolute legal sense to require the bill creating this body to likewise require a constitutional majority for passage.

If the Virginia constitution had required a specific number of state senators, perhaps a different argument could be made. But the constitution is clear: the GA has to first decide how many offices to create before it can redistrict.

That they chose to keep the same number – 40 – as previously existed again doesn’t change this mandatory constitutional duty. As a legal matter, they actually started at 33, since this is what the constitution says is minimally required. They choose to create 7 more than required.

The 40 were created for political reasons. This is their constitutional right. But the legislative basis of their action revolved around the purpose of creating a certain number of new offices for their Republican friends. This they have admitted.

The GOP position, presumably, is that since these offices are just Senators representing different populations, they are not “new” in the constitutional sense. But if they aren’t new, then they would by deduction have to be the “old.” Yet according to the constitution, a person representing the “old” position who runs and supposedly wins one of the “not new” positions can actually be prohibited from taking office if he or she refuses to move their residency depending on the geography of this “not new”position.

So I ask: How can a re-elected Senator being considered as merely keeping the same “not new” office when he or she can lose that office despite being re-elected depending on the geographical differences in the two districts? (Remember, it isn’t necessary to reside in a district to run and win. But if you want to assume your “not new” office in the GA, you must reside in the “not new” district.”)

By logical deduction, the conclusion is thus: Since a Senate redistricting starts with 33 as the constitutional minimum, the GOP power-grab bill set out to intentionally create its own version of 40 “new offices”, slicing and dicing as they decided by their own criteria. Some number of these offices were specifically created so they would not replicate those already in existence except for the title in terms of the representation at issue.

The people get it: the GOP intended to create new “offices” as regards their Senators to the maximum extent possible to benefit the GOP, not the voters. Except for keeping the title – Senator – of the office the same, the whole point of the power grab is to create “new offices” by any commonsense definition of the constitutional process involved.

As a matter of the Virginia constitution, requiring a 21-vote constitutional majority is consistent with the document in all regards. The GOP intended, indeed admitted, to creating new seats for Republicans.

I am from the “if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and cites legal documents like a duck then it’s a duck” school. Or in this case, a bill to create “new offices” is very much a “duck.” Thus, the 20-19 vote to pass the Watkins bill fell shy of the constitutional majority.

Speaker Howell should rule as much and get on with the real business of the people of Virginia.

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Saturday, January 26. Also check out Rep. Bobby Scott’s closing remarks at Vice President Biden’s gun violence roundtable in Richmond

*Senators near agreement on immigration

*Neoconfederate Judges Rule NLRB Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

*Dana Milbank: House Republicans, living in a fantasy world

*Top Republican Distances Himself From GOP’s Election-Rigging Plan

*FLASHBACK: Republicans Opposed Electoral Vote Rigging In 2004, Calling It ‘A Really Stupid Idea’

*Proposal to bar gay discrimination

*Virginia faces $1.4 billion loss under planned Navy cuts

*McDonnell: Don’t change how Va. awards electoral votes

*Updated: GOP Sen. Smith opposes bill to allocate presidential electoral votes by congressional district

*Will a moderate Republican stand up in Va.? (Sadly, “moderate Republican” is basically and oxymoron these days. Democrats, in contrast, are almost uniformly center or mildly center-left.)

*Dragas 1 step away from confirmation on U.Va. board (I’m truly amazed at the lack of uproar by UVA students, faculty, and alumni, considering how angry they were at what Dragas did to President Sullivan. Weird.)

*Bill preventing state officials from enforcing federal gun laws passes Va. House committee (Also see GANGBANGER BILL OF RIGHTS PASSES HOUSE COMMITTEE

*GOP giving McDonnell a beating? (“It could derail his legacy agenda”)

*McAuliffe Urges Cuccinelli to Oppose Redistricting

*Sen. Mark Warner statement on retirement of Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Looking at his voting record and recalling his despicable ads against Vietnam War hero/triple amputee Max Cleland, my statement is as follows: GOOD RIDDANCE!!!)

*McDonnell sells transportation plan in Northern Virginia (The question is why would anyone buy the garbage McDonnell’s peddling?)

*Redistricting has ex-Rep. Davis eyeing Va. Senate (“The onetime Alabama Democrat [Artur Davis] is now a Republican who’s said to be considering a state Senate bid in Northern Virginia, perhaps against Sen. Dave Marsden, in 2015 if the new district map remains in place…” Blech.)

*Proposed electoral revamp yields infamous fraction (Seems appropriate at some level for this pathetic maneuver by Republicans)

*Cuccinelli wants Bolling on his side

*Nats will name William Howard Taft new racing president

*Capitals collect a point but fall in OT

*Third snow in a week hits Richmond

Is it just me… or am I the only person in Virginia wondering what happened to my state senator? Has anyone happened to notice the presence of our Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel down in Richmond?

I know that this may be an odd route of questioning, but Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel has suddenly become not the same predictable politician than we have grown to know over the past five years. This Jill Vogel has stormed into this session, positioning herself in as something of the “rogue” within the Republican Party of Virginia.

You can draw some indications of an evolving legislator by simply reviewing the bills Vogel has submitted for this General Assembly session. We don’t even need to drill that far into the facts of the matter, because anyone who has any knowledge of Senator Vogel’s record in the Virginia State Senate must be in a state of shock after just a couple of Vogel’s very public actions.

It is a very blatantly obvious change of course for the senator to have gone on the record in two very significant subcommittee votes on rather controversial issues, which she sided with the minority party. A senate subcommittee on Monday narrowly approved a bill that would ban discrimination against LGBT employees.

The 8-7 vote in support of Senate Bill 701 was passed out of the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee. Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel was the only Republican on the committee to back the proposal that currently has more than 40 co-sponsors in both legislative chambers. The passage of SB 701 out of committee, now heads to the senate floor propelled by the slim one vote margin made possible by Vogel’s willingness to break from her party in support of the measure. The actual vote on SB 701 in the full senate is expected to take place in the coming days or weeks, with Vogel’s vote arguably credited for the very survival of this legislation.

Then we reference Senator Vogel’s public opposition, in form of casting a vote in subcommittee against her party’s effort to push through a bill that would award the state’s electoral votes by congressional district. This would mean that the presidential candidate that wins the most votes in the particular congressional district, would receive that district’s single electoral vote.

Legislation that would apportion Virginia’s electoral votes by the winner of each congressional district, instead of the current winner-take-all system, emerged from a Senate subcommittee today without a recommendation.

This effort goes even further, as it appears that the two “extra” electoral votes (which correspond to the state’s U.S. senators) would go to the candidate that wins the most congressional districts in the presidential election, not the overall winner of the statewide popular vote (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska).

If this would have been the case last November, Governor Romney would have won a total of nine of Virginia’s electoral votes, while handing President Obama just four electoral votes from Virginia. This being the case, regardless of the fact that Obama clearly won the popular vote in Virginia, he would have ended up with just four out of a total of thirteen total electoral votes from Virginia. This scenario clearly is designed to take advantage of the fact that the majority of the state’s eleven congressional districts are mostly rural and considered safe Republican territory.

The vote in a Privileges and Elections subcommittee was 3-3, with Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel, once again siding with the two Democrats on the six-member panel to produce a tie. The legislation now regardless of the tie in the subcommittee heads to the full committee, where a 10-5 GOP majority is likely to send it to the floor of the full Senate for a vote.

If Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel continues to not break under the pressure of her own party and holds true in her opposition to the legislation, since the chamber is evenly divided between the two parties would decide it’s ultimate fate.  A single dissenting vote, which could very well end up credited to Senator Vogel if she holds the line, would be a surprising and devastating blow to the legislation and all but permanently sink to the measure. We have now recently learned that Republican Senator Ralph Smith has possiby joined Vogel in opposition to this legislation.

This is the storyline of a Senator named Jill Holtzman Vogel, to begin the 2013 chapter of the Virginia General Assembly. It’s Vogel who has turned heads, publicly dissenting from the majority or entire delegation of her party. This is the same Vogel who initiated the Transvaginal Ultrasound controversy, that ended up blowing up in her face and included a wide range of collateral damage to the image of the Republican Party in Virginia. It also has pinned our governor with the unflattering title of “Governor Ultrasound.” The entire controversy stemmed from Senator Vogel’s initial legislation she proposed, initiating all the damage that was done.

It’s our same Senator Vogel who has been frequently criticized for waging socially divisive battles, earning her own title as a “culture warrior.” The actions she took, accompanied the words she spoke over the past five years. An ambitious state senator, choosing the path towards the far right to travel along with some of the most radical rightwing legislators in Virginia. The Senator Vogel who served in the same light shared with many other extreme conservative politicians in Virginia such as Ken Cuccinelli, who is only a matter of time from officially becoming the Republican nominee for Governor of Virginia.

What has happened to the Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel that walloped this former opponent of hers in 2011? Wait… She may have been spotted on foot, headed North on the side of I-95 near the Ashland exit. Could this be true? I doubt it to be factual. Hmm…

This does present an interesting possible explanation surrounding our Senator Jill Vogel, as to the possible intent behind the mask. The strategic positioning that this very calculated politician may indeed be related to the fate of her future. The reasoning behind such a significant shift of predictability in regards to Vogel’s probable and/or likely actions in reaction to what she faced.

The ability to speculate is a right bestowed upon the best of us all. I shall proceed with a good dose of speculation, mixed with an ample review of the facts laid out in front of us all. This new adaptation of a Senator JIll Holtzman Vogel — Version 2.0, can be reasonably explained and rooted deeply in that of pure AMBITION.

I do believe or necessarily pass judgement quickly upon those who clearly express in various ways, consistent acts in regards to the ambition that must exist in those few who arrive at their ultimate destination. There is definitely something going on here, with such a significant shift in precedent of someones actions. Then if these are indeed calculated moves on Senator Vogel’s part, born out of such ambition, where is that ultimate destination in which she has mapped out a very detailed path to reach?

Our Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel may very well be laying the foundation necessary to shed the title of Senator, while assuming a much more attractive title as Representative Jill H. Vogel (R – Virginia) or Congresswoman Vogel. That’s right… The winds of fate are at her back, having somehow been signaled the impending retirement of Congressman Frank Wolf, who represents the 10th Congressional District of Virginia. reaching out to a few respected leaders within the Republican Party of Virginia, I posed the same basic questions attempting to feel out the rumors that have been circulating about a possible Wolf retirement coming soon. The dots that I was able to connect, were inconclusive. That may be the case, but the bits and pieces of information that each person carefully crafted their words to properly comment on, without being told an absolute fact did reveal quite a bit.

In connecting all of the information that I was able to obtain, with observing subtle moves and statements that have been on the increase over the last month, have led me to believe that this may very possibly be Frank Wolf’s final act. One individual passed on admitted hearsay regarding the consistent talk surrounding an announcement coming by early Fall from Congressman Wolf announcing his retirement from the U.S. Congress and would not be seeking reelection in 2014.

This all seems to make perfectly reasonable and rational sense. Wolf would be under a lot of pressure, if indeed he was seriously considering retirement sooner than later, to bow out and allow for his open seat to be filled by an election taking place during a midterm election cycle. This would be the case by providing an open seat to be filled in 2014. If he decided to put off retirement and serve another term, he’d infuriate his party’s leadership by creating an open seat in 2016. This would be considered as providing a much better opportunity for the seat to be won by a Democrat, due to the historic patterns of a much stronger turnout of Democratic voters in a presidential elction year, versus the opposite being true for the GOP in midterm election years.

The possibility of Frank Wolf even considering remaining in office until 2018, the next midtem election year following 2014 is very, very unlikely. It’s fair to say that there is strong evidence that Frank Wolf will indeed not seek reelection in 2014 and has made those within his party deemed as having to be informed of such a decision aware of this being the case.

It appears as if at least one of those considered as top contenders for landing as the party’s nominee in an election taking place in 2014, without Frank Wolf being on the ballot once again, has come to realize fairly quickly that being branded as such a radical right-wing politician is not in their best interests. This is the most likely case with Senator Vogel, who has wasted little time in attempting to appear as a very reasonably moderate state legislator that is not afraid to break from her own party when necessary. This being a shorter session than usual for the Virginia General Assembly, means that time is of the essence for Vogel to establish such credentials to trump any mention of transvaginal ultrasounds.

I think we may have found out just what happened to the Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel, who we have been able to recognize and expect the very partisan politics that defined the sometimes radically unreasonable state senator of our past, who now must stick to a very different script fueled by the ambition behind the possibly of playing a new role in respect to such a very different script.

Ambition is not a dirty word. Piss on party congeniality. Go for the throat.

Let me be clear… This is a theory, anchored in speculation… Tied together by pieces of information found along the way… That after a reasonable review of all that such involves, makes this speculation that I present, that of a rational possibility initiated by some very interesting factual demonstrations and series of events.

From the Virginia Senate Democratic caucus…

All 20 Democratic Senators support legislation 
sponsored by Sen. McEachin and Sen. Ebbin

RICHMOND, VA — On a 24-16 vote today the Virginia Senate passed landmark employment protections for LGBT Virginians in state government. There are currently no protections in law for LGBT citizens who are discriminated against on the job in Virginia government. 

Senator Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) said, "This bill would write into the law a fundamental Virginia value, equal protection, and protect all state employees against being discriminated against for any reason.  I am glad the Senate voted today for SB 701. The time has come for Virginia law to reflect the will of the majority of Virginia's citizens."

Senator Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) said, "In 1970, Governor Linwood Holton signed an executive order prohibiting discrimination in state employment. 35 years later, Governor Mark Warner signed an executive order expanding those protections to include sexual orientation, and Governor Tim Kaine's first executive order did the same. No state employee should ever doubt Virginia's commitment to equal opportunity employment for all. This bill assures state employees that they will be judged solely on their merits and that discrimination has no place in Virginia."

Yes, these people (the Koch brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity; see press release below) are living in a conservative fever dream, right-wing lala land of some sort. It's certainly not "reality," or anything close to it. Thus, in the Koch/AFP world – believe it or not – Virginia's State Senate districts have been "meticulously crafted to ensure liberal control of the Virginia Senate for the next decade and beyond," and where the Virginia Senate Republicans' Inauguration Day coup was actually a "fair redistricting plan" that will help "ensure that there are more areas [of Virginia] where free-market principles can be upheld."  

Of course, this is all wildly wrong on every level. First, while there's no question that Saslaw et al. gerrymandered the State Senate districts in 2011, at best one could argue that might have helped eke out a narrow Democratic – not at all the same thing as "liberal," as there are many conservative and moderate Democrats in the State Senate – majority (it didn't even succeed in that, sadly), but "liberal control…for the next decade and beyond?" WTF?

Second, in what conceivable way is the Republican counter-gerrymandering "fair?" The process by which they've gone about doing so certainly wasn't, and the end result would be to lock in Republican control of the State Senate for many years to come, even though Virginia at the state level is NOT a "red" state, having gone for Barack Obama twice in a row, not to mention having elected two Democratic U.S. Senators. So how is the Republican gerrymander "fair?" In Koch/AFP lala land, apparently up is down, hot is cold, etc.  

Finally, since when are Virginia Republicans – or AFP, or the Koch brothers – defenders of the "free market?" Last I checked, these guys were all about massive corporate welfare and many other distortions to the theoretical/nonexistent "free market." Thus, Bob McDonnell touts his subsidization of corporations to move to Virginia, Hollywood movie producers to shoot their films in the Commonwealth, you name it. If that's the "free" market, I'd hate to see what "command and control" might look like! Ee gads.  Anyway, check out this delusional, hyperventilating press release if you need a good laugh. On second though, given how much damage the Koch brothers and their ideological minions are doing to our country, there's nothing really funny about it.  

Dear , He will have control if you don’t act right now.   On Monday, the Senate of Virginia voted to correct its outrageously gerrymandered districts, which were engineered in 2011 by Senators Don McEachin and Dick Saslaw. Those districts were meticulously crafted to ensure liberal control of the Virginia Senate for the next decade and beyond. Please help us stop this plan from succeeding by taking action today.   In defense of limited government and economic freedom, many other senators stood up to Senators McEachin and Saslaw this week when they passed a fair redistricting plan that undoes the hyper-partisan gerrymandering that passed in 2011. Naturally, the media is attacking these defenders of freedom for doing the right thing and standing up, all the while characterizing Senators McEachin and Saslaw as innocent victims.

Now, House Bill 259, a piece of legislation that would ensure that there are more areas where free-market principles can be upheld, is before the House of Delegates. Conservative delegates – those free-market defenders – now have the power to decide whether or not the Senate of Virginia will be controlled by Senators McEachin and Saslaw or by the people of Virginia. 

Pease contact your delegate now. Let them know that you support the Senate amendments to HB259, and tell them to pass it now.

This bill is already before the House of Delegates, so a decision on it is likely to be made in hours, not days. Over the last several years, Virginia has been consistently rated best for business and has sustained itself during this economic downturn. For our future, it is imperative that Virginia continues to remain one of the leading states in economic freedom, so please contact your representative now so that we all can enjoy continued years of prosperity.

Give your Delegate the encouragement that they need. Remind them that it’s not the media that they’re representing. Rather, it’s the thousands of citizens in their home district. They must hear from you – they need to know that you support fair Senate Districts.

Click HERE to contact your Delegate.

Remember, you must act very quickly. The decision on this critical bill could be made as soon as noon TODAY, so your quick action will make a difference. Let us continue with the free-market way of life that we’re used to in Virginia!

Audrey Jackson
Virginia State Director
Americans for Prosperity

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Friday, January 25. Also, check out DPVA Chair Charniele Herring about 8 minutes into The Ed Show video, discussing Republican attempts to monkey with Virginia’s electoral vote allocation and State Senate districts.

*GOP is pushing electoral changes in Va., elsewhere

*Hubris in the Commonwealth (“…no sooner had Senator Henry Marsh III, a black civil rights leader, left for the inauguration on Martin Luther King’s Birthday than the Republicans pounced like street thugs to limit debate to 30 minutes and pass their shabbily partisan ploy by a vote of 20 to 19.”)

*Senate approves deal that modifies filibuster rules, keeps 60-vote hurdle

*Va. leaders struggling on next step for Republicans’ redistricting plan

*Napolitano, Sebelius to join Biden at gun talk

*Editorial: The GOP’s other raw power play (“A bill to change Virginia’s electoral vote system goes beyond hard-ball politics.”)

*Editorial: The blemish of gerrymandering (“A Senate plan to sabotage political maps should be rejected, but voters deserve an independent commission.”)

*Bob McDonnell could approve Virginia GOP redistricting plan

*Gov. Bob McDonnell pressures Virginia lawmakers to support roads plan (This plan is garbage – reject it!)

*Gov. didn’t like the way redistricting plan passed

*Norfolk senator gets key committees, fellow Democrats fuming

*Sniping escalates between Saslaw, Snyder

*Warner trying again with election reform

*Va. lawmakers zero in on school sports bills

*McDonnell’s teacher evaluation reform gains steam in legislature

*A small sign of Virginia’s sins

*Kaine casts first vote in U.S. Senate in favor of filibuster reform

*House subcommittee rejects bill to change public notices

*NoVa real estate back to booming? $600K houses in short supply, condos in high demand

*Canadiens bounce Capitals to 0-3

*D.C. area forecast: Light snow arriving this afternoon set to complicate PM commute

This is classic, starting at around 6:50 of the audio, when the topic turns to Republican LG candidate Pete Snyder, who launched a ridiculous radio ad today attacking Dick Saslaw as throwing a “temper tantrum,” “holding the progress of the state hostage,” loving higher taxes, etc.  Anyway, here’s how Dick Saslaw reacts when host John Fredericks asks him about it:

Dick Saslaw: Who is Pete Snyder?

John Fredericks: Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia on the GOP side.

Saslaw: Oh, never heard of him. I mean, I’m really not considered about some nutjob, you know, running a radio ad whose knowledge of this state could be put in a 1-ounce shotglass, with half of it empty still…

Fredericks: So it sounds like you’re not particularly swayed by…

Saslaw: I’ve never heard of this guy, you sure he’s running for office in Virginia?

Fredericks: [Laughter] Yes, Lieutenant Governor.

Saslaw: What’s his name?

Fredericks: Pete Snyder, he’s a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. [laughter]

Saslaw: Never heard of him, where does he live?

Fredericks: Northern Virginia.

Saslaw: No, I’ve been in Northern Virginia 45 years, I’ve never heard of the guy.

One thing I’ll give Saslaw, he’s certainly entertaining! Also, I disagree with Saslaw on payday lending and other issues, but he’s absolutely correct about Pete Snyder – the guy’s as right wingnutty as they come, with the possible exception of Ken Kookinelli (although actually, come to think of it, there’s not much if any difference on the issues between those two).